Comments - Feeling Cyncial About 9/11 Anniversary - Think Atheist2016-12-10T03:02:15Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=1982180%3ABlogPost%3A831566&xn_auth=noGot to include this too: http…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-10:1982180:Comment:8396302011-09-10T10:18:41.822ZAlbert Bakkerhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/AlbertBakker
<p>Got to include this too: <a href="http://costofwar.com/en/" target="_blank">http://costofwar.com/en/</a></p>
<p>Got to include this too: <a href="http://costofwar.com/en/" target="_blank">http://costofwar.com/en/</a></p> On todays NPR Science Friday…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-09:1982180:Comment:8389982011-09-09T20:00:47.190ZBethhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MotherLodeBeth
<p><font size="3">On todays NPR Science Friday show they did an hour about</font> <font size="3">The Psychology of 9-11, where the noted Ten Years Later Immediately after the September 11 attacks, many first responders and other victims received psychological care. Ira Flatow and guests look at the psychological effects of 9-11, and what researchers have learned since then about caring for victims of psychological trauma. They noted that those who had some type of religious/spiritual base did…</font></p>
<p><font size="3">On todays NPR Science Friday show they did an hour about</font> <font size="3">The Psychology of 9-11, where the noted Ten Years Later Immediately after the September 11 attacks, many first responders and other victims received psychological care. Ira Flatow and guests look at the psychological effects of 9-11, and what researchers have learned since then about caring for victims of psychological trauma. They noted that those who had some type of religious/spiritual base did better than those who didnt.</font> <a href="http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201109094">http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201109094</a></p> @Albert Bakker If you go in…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-09:1982180:Comment:8387072011-09-09T18:27:26.863ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>@Albert Bakker If you go into counter-factual history you can make up any causal link you like."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>True, and it doesn't stop the Republicans from claiming Obama's policies have failed, when actually we might be even worse off without them. It's easy to promote the success of the path someone didn't take because there's no evidence to have to defend.</p>
<p>@Albert Bakker If you go into counter-factual history you can make up any causal link you like."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>True, and it doesn't stop the Republicans from claiming Obama's policies have failed, when actually we might be even worse off without them. It's easy to promote the success of the path someone didn't take because there's no evidence to have to defend.</p> Being a general must be the e…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-09:1982180:Comment:8380262011-09-09T15:20:30.974ZAlbert Bakkerhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/AlbertBakker
<p>Being a general must be the easiest occupation in the world, because everybody knows exactly how to do it.</p>
<p>Being a general must be the easiest occupation in the world, because everybody knows exactly how to do it.</p> @Sasson, "a broad coalition o…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-09:1982180:Comment:8372092011-09-09T00:30:43.192ZPope Beaniehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/PaulRyan
<p>@Sasson, "a broad coalition of 40 countries" sounds pretty good. But only the UK, Australia, and Poland actually sent troops into battle. Furthermore, most support came from states' political machines, as most people in most countries were against the invasion. And this was true even before the world learned that the case for Iraqi WMDs was just a case of politically driven paranoia, driven by fear of terrorism, which so many American "patriots" so anxiously played out as if democracy itself…</p>
<p>@Sasson, "a broad coalition of 40 countries" sounds pretty good. But only the UK, Australia, and Poland actually sent troops into battle. Furthermore, most support came from states' political machines, as most people in most countries were against the invasion. And this was true even before the world learned that the case for Iraqi WMDs was just a case of politically driven paranoia, driven by fear of terrorism, which so many American "patriots" so anxiously played out as if democracy itself was about to fall. The terrorists won because we allowed ourselves to act out of terror instead of with good judgement.</p>
<p>And how are you so sure that Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya would not have been liberated, and that leadership and politics in these countries (and Iraq) will remain immune from infiltration by Al Qaeda and other terrorists? How can you be sure these will all turn out to be success stories, and not stories about how getting rid of one bad government isn't opening doors for an even worse fate? You said yourself that the people are killing themselves. How many more years before we all know for sure that the gamble has definitely paid off?</p>
<p>@Arcus, I give up. I can't compete in a war of responses twice as long as mine. :) Sorry.</p>
<p> </p> "Neither where the WMD hidden…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-08:1982180:Comment:8369092011-09-08T21:44:55.282ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>"Neither where the WMD hidden in Syria or stuck under the bed of Kim Jung Il."</p>
<p>Syria was building a nuclear enrichment plant with Iranian money and NK tech. The Kims are just struggling with getting the fuses right, they are otherwise a nuclear country. But their reach is only Alaska and possibly Guam, which I consider to be acceptable losses if they decide to do a first strike.</p>
<p>"Know thy blow-back."</p>
<p>Usually it comes out of blow holes, no..? Know thy IR realism theory…</p>
<p>"Neither where the WMD hidden in Syria or stuck under the bed of Kim Jung Il."</p>
<p>Syria was building a nuclear enrichment plant with Iranian money and NK tech. The Kims are just struggling with getting the fuses right, they are otherwise a nuclear country. But their reach is only Alaska and possibly Guam, which I consider to be acceptable losses if they decide to do a first strike.</p>
<p>"Know thy blow-back."</p>
<p>Usually it comes out of blow holes, no..? Know thy IR realism theory <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_in_international_relations#Comparing_Functionalism_to_Realism" target="_blank">spillover effect</a>.</p>
<p>"It baffles me how people continue to conflate Iraq with terrorism"</p>
<p>I don't think too many did.. The casus belli was WMDs, which Saddam had had, and had used a number of times, was iffy about inspecting that he didn't, and had no trust with anyone when he assured the world that he didn't. It was perhaps the only time he told the truth, but it doesn't change that he was notoriously unreliable. In addition, the invasion was not a surprise. He could have stepped down peacefully but chose to incite a civil war instead.</p>
<p>"Then, falling prey to terrorists, our knee jerk reaction was to invade Iraq, justified by false (or at least careless) pretext"</p>
<p>Just because Powell was black I didn't immediately distrust him at the UN.. Then again, I didn't think invading Iraq was a terribly good idea. Better to sell them bullets and let them fight it out themselves, the Afghanistan tactic against the Russians. Much more profitable and lot less US blood spilled.</p>
<p>"because we felt that the fear of being attacked again gave us the right to act as world police"</p>
<p>The US role as the only superpower gives the US the <em>duty</em> to act as the world police. Who else is going to take that responsibility?</p>
<p>"When we invaded Iraq, we lost support of the world"</p>
<p>No. Invading Iraq with insufficient force and without a realistic agenda lost you your allies. 10m soldiers would have pacified the country quickly, a soldier on each street corner. Half asses interventions gives disastrous results.</p>
<p>"Terrorism has now been proven effective at exposing America's true, evil colors, the America who is now not even interested in counting the number of innocents killed."</p>
<p>WTF? All Americans do is to count 'innocent civilian dead'. Can't make war without cracking a few heads. It's the nature of the thing.</p>
<p>"The reason why the number of traffic fatalities is relevant is because it helps to clearly illustrate how whacked our priorities are."</p>
<p>It only proves how bad Americans are at driving and how well you do at aiming. If there were 2 US soldiers killed per civilian casualty caused, would it make you happier?</p>
<p>"The big fear of Americans is suddenly about being "bitch-slapped" by a handful of rogues."</p>
<p>Yeah. Terror <em>should</em> frighten you. It's why it's called <em>terror</em> and not cuddling. Terrorists use it as a weapon <em>because</em> it instils fear. If bombs go off people get scared, it's strategy almost as simple as it is effective. The threat of more bombs going off tends to drive people to the bring of sanity.</p>
<p>"The number of fatalities and lost limbs and and brain injuries and broken families suddenly has no relevance, when we have to worry about being "bitch-slapped""</p>
<p>It doesn't "suddenly" have no relevance. I am saying that for <em>me</em>, American lives have no significance. At least until a critical point where the US is unable to provide adequate security for my nation, which I guess would set in at around 75% of males aged 15-40 dead. At that point, I'd support neutrality for my country.</p>
<p>"But now it's better because America's responsible for innocent deaths"</p>
<p>So, if it had been Iranians killing Iraqis, it would be fine since it's not Americans..? I don't think the dead cares too much who killed</p> If Alexander The Great wouldn…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-08:1982180:Comment:8362202011-09-08T19:13:28.958ZAlbert Bakkerhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/AlbertBakker
<p>If Alexander The Great wouldn't have conquered Persia, America would have been a monarchy. If you go into counter-factual history you can make up any causal link you like.</p>
<p>If Alexander The Great wouldn't have conquered Persia, America would have been a monarchy. If you go into counter-factual history you can make up any causal link you like.</p> The war in Iraq had a broad c…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-08:1982180:Comment:8359762011-09-08T18:25:22.386ZSassan K.http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/SassanK
<p>The war in Iraq had a broad coalition of 40-countries including the United States.</p>
<p>The war in Iraq had a broad coalition of 40-countries including the United States.</p> If Saddam had not been remove…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-08:1982180:Comment:8361652011-09-08T18:18:11.465ZSassan K.http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/SassanK
<p>If Saddam had not been removed, Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya wouldn't have been liberated. It created a psychological chain in which these tyrants were no longer infallible; particularly Ghaddafi in giving up his nuclear program due to his fear of being next - which made him look particularly weak to his own people. To follow in President Bush's <em>Freedom Initiative</em>, Syria followed by Iran.</p>
<p>If Saddam had not been removed, Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya wouldn't have been liberated. It created a psychological chain in which these tyrants were no longer infallible; particularly Ghaddafi in giving up his nuclear program due to his fear of being next - which made him look particularly weak to his own people. To follow in President Bush's <em>Freedom Initiative</em>, Syria followed by Iran.</p> You think Saddam or his likel…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-08:1982180:Comment:8362032011-09-08T17:50:33.063ZPope Beaniehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/PaulRyan
<p><em><strong>You think Saddam or his likely successors would have cared much about getting their hands bloody?</strong></em></p>
<p>Sure, Saddam was evil. But now it's better because America's responsible for innocent deaths, under the false (or at least careless) pretext of protecting the homeland? Will Iraq-invasion supporters ever feel like<em> their </em>hands are bloody, or does their American flag make them automatically immune to those pesky details?</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em><strong>You think Saddam or his likely successors would have cared much about getting their hands bloody?</strong></em></p>
<p>Sure, Saddam was evil. But now it's better because America's responsible for innocent deaths, under the false (or at least careless) pretext of protecting the homeland? Will Iraq-invasion supporters ever feel like<em> their </em>hands are bloody, or does their American flag make them automatically immune to those pesky details?</p>
<p> </p>